Doe v. Google LLC

Background

John Doe had received permission to litigate under a pseudonym. Doe voluntarily dismissed all defendants, including fictitious defendants Roes 1–50, and the court terminated the case in July 2021. Roe 1 then filed a request for attorney’s fees and a request for permission to file a formal motion seeking reconsideration of the pseudonym order.

Roe 1 had never asked for or received permission to keep its identity secret. The court stated that federal litigation is generally transparent and directed Roe 1 to file, by May 2, 2022, either a statement identifying itself or a request to proceed anonymously that complied with governing standards.

Reconsideration Request

The court denied Roe 1’s request to reconsider the termination of its motion to vacate the order allowing Doe to proceed under a pseudonym. The court explained that Doe’s dismissal of the claims against Borderland Beat and Roes 1–25 ended the case against Roe 1, and Roe 1 had not shown any circumstance warranting reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b).

Attorney’s Fees

Roe 1 identified California’s anti-SLAPP statute, California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c), as the only possible basis for its fee request. Anti-SLAPP laws provide a procedure for addressing lawsuits that improperly target protected speech or petitioning activity.

The court noted that Doe had dismissed the complaint’s only federal claim, which supplied the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, and that the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The court nevertheless assumed, without deciding, that it could retain jurisdiction to decide whether Roe 1 was entitled to fees after the voluntary dismissal.

Under the approach the court assumed applied, a defendant who files an anti-SLAPP motion may be treated as a prevailing party after a voluntary dismissal, subject to circumstances rebutting that result. The court held that Roe 1 could not be treated as a prevailing defendant. Doe’s counsel stated that Doe dismissed the case to protect Doe’s anonymity after Roe 1 sought to vacate the pseudonym order. The record did not show that Roe 1 obtained the dismissal through its anti-SLAPP motion, and Roe 1 offered no evidence that the dismissal was connected to the merits of that motion.

The court also found substantial doubt that Roe 1 would have prevailed on the anti-SLAPP motion. Doe’s complaint alleged that defendants unlawfully obtained and published a photograph of Doe’s California driver’s license, revealing personal information. Although the court recognized that alleged international drug trafficking was a serious matter of public concern, it concluded that publishing a copy of Doe’s driver’s license was not itself a matter of public interest for purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute. The court therefore denied the attorney’s-fees request.

Disposition

Judge James Donato denied Roe 1’s request for reconsideration and denied Roe 1’s request for attorney’s fees. The court also ordered Roe 1 to identify itself or submit a compliant request to proceed under a pseudonym by May 2, 2022.